Shouldn't they be getting better at this? (Microsoft)

[Ketchup]

Reading a few threads, and I just started to ponder: Why are we still having to deal with so many issues when we install a new OS from Microsoft?

Say we have a system running great on 7; install new OS for the beautiful GUI and some new features, BAM, one of the hard drives isn't detected, the driver for our video card crashes every game, our USB mouse doesn't respond, (insert gripe here).

I really don't understand it. I am not a programmer, but why do you NEED to change an OS so much that the things running on the very last OS don't work with it?

Why don't you just release something that has 99% or better compatibility with the last system, and then release updates as the new hardware comes into play?

 

[Elixer]

That could be done, but sometimes, things are too broken and they need to change the way something works.

 

[Imaginer]

Had no problems with 7 to 8 on two computers I have. Driver hiccups and peripheral hiccups? Non-existent. This is someone who is running a HD6950, HD7970 x 2, and logitech peripherals, a Brother Laser printer, and a Blackmagic Intensity Pro card. All on ASUS motherboards of the Sandy Bridge and Ivy Bridge era.

Maybe I just got lucky? Maybe the squeaky wheel is louder across the net?

 

[Berryracer]

Reading a few threads, and I just started to ponder: Why are we still having to deal with so many issues when we install a new OS from Microsoft?

Say we have a system running great on 7; install new OS for the beautiful GUI and some new features, BAM, one of the hard drives isn't detected, the driver for our video card crashes every game, our USB mouse doesn't respond, (insert gripe here).

I really don't understand it. I am not a programmer, but why do you NEED to change an OS so much that the things running on the very last OS don't work with it?

Why don't you just release something that has 99% or better compatibility with the last system, and then release updates as the new hardware comes into play?

very good topics, also makes me wonder, why is it when u upgrade a Mac OSX eveyrthing works great but if you upgrade a Windows OS you are only asking for trouble unless you do a clean install and have the right drivers.

Haven't they learned anything useful by now?

 

[Ketchup]

....Maybe I just got lucky? Maybe the squeaky wheel is louder across the net?

Glad you had a good experience. Folks with issue definitely "squeak" louder.

 

[mikeymikec]

That could be done, but sometimes, things are too broken and they need to change the way something works.

Or in order to add features they need to alter the base that those features would be built upon.

very good topics, also makes me wonder, why is it when u upgrade a Mac OSX eveyrthing works great but if you upgrade a Windows OS you are only asking for trouble unless you do a clean install and have the right drivers.

Haven't they learned anything useful by now?

Apple's OS only needs to work with a tiny fraction of the hardware that Windows is expected to work with.

Your reinstall point is valid though. My feeling is that Windows installations get a lot more abuse because a lot more software is available for it. I also think that Windows is a bit of a sprawling mess of development; poorly documented APIs and methods for implementing things like the ways that an app could be started automatically. Microsoft has benefited greatly from being backwards compatible but I think they ought to have a plan for either cleaning up the old, superseded technologies or building a new OS from scratch with only pre-determined required levels of Win32/64 compatibility.

 

[Berryracer]

Your reinstall point is valid though. My feeling is that Windows installations get a lot more abuse because a lot more software is available for it. I also think that Windows is a bit of a sprawling mess of development; poorly documented APIs and methods for implementing things like the ways that an app could be started automatically. Microsoft has benefited greatly from being backwards compatible but I think they ought to have a plan for either cleaning up the old, superseded technologies or building a new OS from scratch with only pre-determined required levels of Win32/64 compatibility.

This is because the Windows registry is very fragile! any uninstallation of an AV for example if not done with the proper uninstall took will lead to bugs when you install the next AV

and people want me to upgrade my OS to carry over the old registry crap to the new one? heck, Windows ships with a few registry errors so I'm definitely never taking any changes of combining both registries in an upgrade and having a living nightmare OS to live with

 

[QuietDad]

90% of the problems in any windows system is device drivers. Microsoft publishes the specs of how to interface with windows and device manufacturers don't follow them or don't develop to the interface. The only real problems on the Windows side are usually security related, Tough getting blamed for code you didn't write.

 

[Ketchup]

90% of the problems in any windows system is device drivers. Microsoft publishes the specs of how to interfae with windows and device manufacturers don't follow them or don't develop to the interface. The only real problems on the Windows side are usually security related, Tough getting blamed for coed you didn't write.

Valid point, but my question would be why does the OS have to be written to require the new drivers? Especially if the goal is just to retain the functionality you had with the prevous OS. A new piece of hardware rolled out around the same time as a new OS is the only real excuse I would accept for this.

 

[denis280]

This is a good subject.I live in a small village.and everybody. Kids with games.and older peoples. are always calling for issue with dam drivers.

 

[JackMDS]

very good topics, also makes me wonder, why is it when u upgrade a Mac OSX eveyrthing works great but if you upgrade a Windows OS you are only asking for trouble unless you do a clean install and have the right drivers.?

That is the difference between simplicity vs. versatility.

OSX is much less versatile and built to work with the specific hardware set of the hardware that Apple choose for it.

 

[glugglug]

That is the difference between simplicity vs. versatility.

OSX is much less versatile and built to work with the specific hardware set of the hardware that Apple choose for it.

This.

Also, in addition to only supporting the limited set of hardware they sell, Apple has a history of only allowing a few OS versions on any given piece of hardware. My old mac that came with System 7.1 (and required that as a minimum) was incapable of running System 8.5. Also it had a 4MB ROM (ginormous for 1992), which included the QuickDraw libraries which would basically be the equivalent of video drivers. So the range of possible OS on it was just 7.1-8.1, and 7.2-7.4 and 7.7-7.9 don't exist, it skipped from .1 to .5. An iPhone 3 can't be "upgraded" to iOS7.

Also, while Mac hardware is supported by a new OS (if they allow the upgrade at all), there have been instances where they have broken a lot of 3rd party software applications. The transition from OS X 10.6 to 10.7 was particularly bad as far as that goes, as they got rid of some legacy PowerPC emulation and changed the network stack.

 

[lxskllr]

That is the difference between simplicity vs. versatility.

OSX is much less versatile and built to work with the specific hardware set of the hardware that Apple choose for it.

My Debian computer started in a completely different machine, and has had continuous updates for over a year now. I started on Wheezy, and I'm now on Jessie. My Ubuntu netbook has been going since 2008, and had a version change in between. GNU/Linux support was the last thing on the designer's of my hardware's mind.

 

[sze5003]

I just installed windows 8.1 preview over windows 8 and it seems to work fine. Some programs had to be reinstalled, wamp was one of them. But everything else stayed the same. I even activated it with my windows 8 key.

I agree they should streamline it for better functionality but with windows and registry, clean install is the safest bet. Mac os is specific to some hardware and it's based on Unix so it's more universal.

Linux mint runs great on my pc after I found out that I had to build my own drivers for my 7970 and now when it updates no more video failure.

 

[IamDavid]

99.9% of installation issues are NOT Microsoft ruing. the 1,000,000 different vendors who can't follow MS specs screw things up beyond belief. MS spends billions trying to "fix " their OS to not appear broken when encountering someone else screw up.

 

[QuietDad]

Valid point, but my question would be why does the OS have to be written to require the new drivers? Especially if the goal is just to retain the functionality you had with the prevous OS. A new piece of hardware rolled out around the same time as a new OS is the only real excuse I would accept for this.

Because when they upgrade the OS to make it better, the way you access it needs to change too. For example, most device drivers run outside the kernel now so when they crash you only lose a device, not the whole machine. If you were to keep backwards compatibility back to Windows 3.1 You'd need a 5TB drive just to install dead code and like the old days of installing windows 95 off of 6 floppies, you'd be installing Windows 9 off 10 dual layers DVD's.

If I ran Microsoft, I would totally hide the operating system, publish the API's to write programs and drivers and then not let anything else run.

Look at Apple, there is a limited amount of Hardware that works and you need to get everything from an app store that developers submit programs too that has to be approved before it's sold. Microsoft has no idea what's out there when they develop the next best thing.

 

[bbhaag]

99.9% of installation issues are NOT Microsoft ruing. the 1,000,000 different vendors who can't follow MS specs screw things up beyond belief. MS spends billions trying to "fix " their OS to not appear broken when encountering someone else screw up.

Indeed. I imagine it also has a lot to do with legacy support.

 

[Remobz]

Because when they upgrade the OS to make it better, the way you access it needs to change too. For example, most device drivers run outside the kernel now so when they crash you only lose a device, not the whole machine. If you were to keep backwards compatibility back to Windows 3.1 You'd need a 5TB drive just to install dead code and like the old days of installing windows 95 off of 6 floppies, you'd be installing Windows 9 off 10 dual layers DVD's.

If I ran Microsoft, I would totally hide the operating system, publish the API's to write programs and drivers and then not let anything else run.

Look at Apple, there is a limited amount of Hardware that works and you need to get everything from an app store that developers submit programs too that has to be approved before it's sold. Microsoft has no idea what's out there when they develop the next best thing.

some good points here

 

[JackMDS]

My Debian computer started in a completely different machine, and has had continuous updates for over a year now. I started on Wheezy, and I'm now on Jessie. My Ubuntu netbook has been going since 2008, and had a version change in between. GNU/Linux support was the last thing on the designer's of my hardware's mind.

Yeah, and this why"""Alll..."""" Wireless cards are compatible with Linux OS.

 

[lxskllr]

Yeah, and this why"""Alll..."""" Wireless cards are compatible with Linux OS.

Wireless is pretty good. It's true there's a few a few exceptions, but that's no surprise considering the drivers are closed in most cases. Really, it makes you wonder even more about MS. How can a system that works with hostile companies, put out a better product via reverse engineering than a company that has everything handed to it on a silver platter?

 

[ultimatebob]

What I don't understand is why Microsoft didn't make upgrading from Windows 8 to 8.1 as easy as installing a service pack. Why did they make users use the store for this?

 

[ninaholic37]

What I don't understand is why Microsoft didn't make upgrading from Windows 8 to 8.1 as easy as installing a service pack. Why did they make users use the store for this?

So that everyone will get adjusted to the store and start looking for more apps so Microsoft can make more $$$$$

 

[ultimatebob]

So that everyone will get adjusted to the store and start looking for more apps so Microsoft can make more $$$$$

Perhaps, but an IT department would never use this process to update their systems.

Heh... what am I talking about. No IT department in their right mind would even think of installing Windows 8.anything on their corporate PC's

OK.. Microsoft might, but they aren't exactly in their right minds at the moment.

 

[Imaginer]

Perhaps, but an IT department would never use this process to update their systems.

Heh... what am I talking about. No IT department in their right mind would even think of installing Windows 8.anything on their corporate PC's

OK.. Microsoft might, but they aren't exactly in their right minds at the moment.

Most IT departments would have contacted Microsoft for different deploy methods and inquiry on ways to do so.

And Microsoft would have those deployment methods available, though these are not for the general public anyways.

 

[ultimatebob]

Most IT departments would have contacted Microsoft for different deploy methods and inquiry on ways to do so.

And Microsoft would have those deployment methods available, though these are not for the general public anyways.

I know that, but I'm used to having a network installer available from the download web site on launch day. You know... like every other OS service pack that Microsoft has done for the past 15 years

When I couldn't easily find one today for Windows 8 Pro, it kinda pissed me off.